5.  The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Maribor.
6.  On 27 February 1988 the applicant, who was a private entrepreneur, was hired by the institution called Dom upokojencev Danice Vogrinec, a retirement home (“the retirement home”), to paint its premises.
7.  On 20 February 1990 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Maribor Basic Court, Maribor Unit (Temeljno sodišče v Mariboru, Enota Maribor) against the retirement home seeking payment for the work he had carried out.
On 15 January 1991, after the court had held four hearings, the applicant's claim was upheld in part.
8.  On 6 March 1991 the applicant appealed to the Maribor Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Mariboru).
On 18 July 1991 the court allowed the applicant's appeal, annulled the first-instance court's judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
9.  On 15 October 1991, after a hearing was held, the first-instance court again upheld the applicant's claim in part. Upon the applicant's request a supplementary judgment was issued on 13 December 1991.
10.  The applicant and the retirement home appealed against both judgments to the Maribor Higher Court.
On 4 May 1993 the court allowed the appeals of the applicant and his adversary, annulled the first-instance court's judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
11.  Until 28 June 1994, the day the Convention entered into force with respect to Slovenia, the first-instance court held two hearings. Another hearing was scheduled but did not take place because the applicant's lawyer failed to appear before the court.
On 14 October 1994 the court held a hearing.
The hearing scheduled for 6 December 1994 was cancelled for an unknown reason.
On 1 January 1995 the Maribor Local Court (Okrajno sodišče v Mariboru) gained jurisdiction in the present case due to the reform of the Slovenian judicial system.
On 10 October 1995 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.
On 16 October 1995 the applicant lodged a request for supervision against the judge presiding over the case, but apparently to no avail.
On 17 October 1995 the court declared the case out of its jurisdiction and transferred it to the Maribor District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Mariboru).
On 9 January 1996 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.
There was apparently a dispute between the Maribor Local Court and the Maribor District Court concerning the jurisdiction. In this respect, the Maribor Higher Court decided on 12 January 1996 that the case fell within the jurisdiction of the Maribor District Court.
On 16 May and 20 September 1996 the court held hearings.
On 6 and 11 November 1996 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.
On 22 November 1996 and 10 January 1997 the court held hearings.
The judgment of 11 February 1997, dismissing the applicant's claim, was served on the applicant on 14 February 1997.
12.  On 24 February 1997 the applicant appealed to the Maribor Higher Court and the following day he amended his appeal. The retirement home cross-appealed.
On 4 June 1998 the Maribor Higher Court allowed both appeals, annulled the first-instance court's judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for re-examination. The decision was served on the applicant on 27 June 1998.
13.  On 1 October 1998 the Maribor District Court held a hearing.
On 10 November 1998 the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions.
The hearing scheduled for 19 November 1998 was cancelled for an unknown reason.
On 5 February, 25 March, 6 May and 26 August 1999 the court held hearings. At the last hearing the court upheld the applicant's request to appoint an expert in construction engineering. The applicant paid the required deposit for the costs of the expert on 3 September 1999.
On 12 January 2000 the court appointed an expert in construction engineering to determine the value of the applicant's work. The expert opinion was delivered on 29 March 2000.
On 16 February 2000 the applicant filed a rush notice.
On 12 May, 7 September and 10 November 2000 the court held hearings.
At the last hearing the court delivered an oral judgment, upholding in part the applicant's claim. On 20 November 2000 the parties to the proceedings informed the court that they would appeal against this judgment, once they receive a written copy.
In a letter of 5 March 2001 the applicant requested the court not to deliver a written judgment yet, since he attempted to settle the case with the retirement home. On 9 April 2001 the latter informed the court that a friendly settlement was in progress.
On 16 May 2001 the applicant requested the court to issue a written judgment. The written judgment was served on the applicant on 28 May 2001.
14.  On 4 June 2001 the applicant appealed. He amended his appeal on 19 July 2001.
On 8 April and 22 May 2002 the applicant filed rush notices.
On 30 May 2002 the Maribor Higher Court allowed the appeal in part and amended the judgment in the part referring to costs and expenses. The decision was served on the applicant at an undetermined time, but after 5 June 2006. The applicant did not appeal.
15.  On 24 July 2002 the applicant asked the Public Prosecutor's Office to lodge a request for protection of legality (zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti) with regard to his case. The request was dismissed on 4 September 2002.
16.  On 20 January 2003 the applicant lodged a request for reopening of proceedings with the Maribor District Court. On 12 June 2003 the request was rejected. The decision was served on the applicant on 18 June 2003.
17.  On 23 June 2003 the applicant appealed to the Maribor Higher Court, which dismissed his appeal on 1 December 2003.
18.  On 12 December 2004 the applicant requested a leave for an appeal on points of law, which the Maribor District Court rejected on 21 January 2004 as not allowed.
19.  On 27 January 2005 the applicant appealed to the Maribor Higher Court against this decision.
On 16 December 2004 the court dismissed the appeal.
20.  On 5 January 2005 the applicant lodged submissions which were considered as an appeal on points of law and the case was transferred to the Supreme Court on 18 April 2005.
The proceedings are still pending.